Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skat Bros. Don't Be Cruel

Skat Bros. Don't Be Cruel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable single. In its current state and according to an unfruitful Google search for sources, this article fails WP:MUSIC скоморохъ 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've found some information on Skatt Bros, and if kept the article should be moved to the correct spelling. But I think this should probably be better served as an article on the band itself. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Students of Arizona State University

Associated Students of Arizona State University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is used as a webhost for this organization, replete with list of candidates for the student government. No sources for notability are in the article. Prod tag removed. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. A student union ought to be the topic of lots of coverage. Most student unions take public positions on issues such as tuition fees, university funding and government loans and bursaries for students. It shouldn't require too much digging to find coverage of this student union in one or more Arizona newspapers. And I disagree with the suggestion that "Wikipedia is used as a webhost for this organization" -- like most student unions, this one already has its own web site. --Eastmain (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I invite others to look at the article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this is just not notable; should have been speedied as an A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I prod tagged a bunch, got deprodded. Can speedy tags still be applied? Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • reply - nope; removal of a prod tag, even if unexplained in the edit summary, is a tacit assertion that the prod is incorrect. You have to go to AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep These articles have most likely been deprodded because there is rational support for the notability of these groups as the one of the main divisions of a university. If there's spam it can be removed, just been deprodded--just as I've just now removed the stuff about the student elections. Wedon't need to bring an article up for deletion in order to improve it. DGG (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If one were to keep removing stuff that was non-encyclopedic, we would have something so short it could be merged to the university's article. What information do you see as notable? Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Page creator here -- I created this article to move the content off Arizona State University due to constant edit wars. The article does not establish notability as is, but it could if properly expanded. I lean toward keeping the article with the stub and expand tags on it. I worry that if it is re-merged it will lead to more content that is too detailed and non-notable for the main ASU article. -Nick^talk 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. -- Dougie WII (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and thus spam should be removed, but there's lots of time for article improvement. GreenJoe 14:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and their 'public positions' are related directly to university issues. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I was unable to find any reliable independent secondary source. (I reserve the right to change my mind if a reliable independent secondary source is identified.) Chuck (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Merge to Main Article article fatally not notable (subject is inherently local in nature, contains no assertion of notability) and has no WP:Reliable Sources, thus any material in article will be WP:Original Research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. FCYTravis (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I really doubt that "all students unions have inherent notability." 1) They are always local in scope, since they are connected to a particular campus. 2) They rarely (if ever) have an reliable third party coverage. 3) Once you delete all of the unverified, unencyclopedic, original researched material, all that remains is a stub. So, it just makes sense to merge the students unions into their main article. 4)WP:UNI's own standards call for students unions to be merged into the main article.

"Student life - Here is also a good place to mention ...students' union activities" (from Wikipedia:UNI#Structure) --RedShiftPA (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• People are seriously going to make a WikiProject for student unions? And they want to be ceded "inherent notability" so that we can have thousands of pages with lists of ambitious polisci majors? The topic of student unions itself could barely support more than two articles. They have had very limited historical impact. Search for books on them; hardly anything. Search in regular newspapers, and all you get is the occasional scandal. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't paper. GreenJoe 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Associated Students of Arizona State University was viewed only 242 times in February, whereas Arizona State University was viewed 21,370 times that same month. That's a ratio of 88:1. This means that, even given that most people don't read all of the article, far more people would read about the ASASU on the ASU page than they do currently. Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I was leaning to a merger before I read the article. Totally and completely fails WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Another Comment. If this article is to be merged with the Arizona State University article, then some strict guidelines need to be set for what is notable enough to be included. At one point, the ASASU article was over 30K. We don't need any more than a paragraph about the student government (and believe me, student government is barely notable as it is within the context of the university--less than 8% of undergrads even bother to vote in elections). I reiterate why I created (but never again edited) the ASASU page--there are ASASU members who are overly invested in their organization, and they were constantly trying to add esoteric and ephemeral information to the ASU page. I want to keep their drama off the main ASU page. As such, I worry that if the decision is to delete or merge the article, it will just move all of this junk to the ASU article. Because of that possibility, and the "Wikipedia is not paper" principle, I would lean toward keeping the page. -Nick^talk 05:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as with other organisations, student organisations need the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. This one hasn't and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It's clear that this article does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations—Noetic Sage 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was delete. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erics device

Erics device (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written by a user called 'Eric des Courtis', and seems to be an advertisement for some sort of code. Mix^Sup? 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Not so much an advertisement as a chunk of function header. Would be appropriate for a programming website, but not for an encyclopedia. Bagheera (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a new method for effectively reducing the size of scanners using the C language. How does this article differ from Duff's device for example?

I agree that function headers can be removed if necessary.

How do I meet the requirements for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.des.courtis (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not surprised you disagree. You wrote it, right? However the question isn't about other articles, it's about this one and the article about it. In this case, there is a description of a C function you developed but no indication of the significance beyond your claim that it's special in some way. If this were developed and was seeing wide use, and you could document references to it in other programming manuals or other sources to establish its notability, it would be fine. As it stands, there's nothing to establish notability and function references aren't in of themselves appropriate for Wikipedia. As I said above - it would be great on a programming site. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless this has previously been published in a credible source elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a CS journal; new techniques should be published first elsewhere. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What would qualify as a credible source?

Understood, I will post the article once it has been published by credible sources. Will the work I have done be lost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.des.courtis (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as you are concerned, it will be lost. So copy the wikitext to your own machine! If you repost, we will not want the C code. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete All original research and the code doesn't seem like anything particularly special so the claims that it was discovered recently are a little far fetched and unsourced. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. OR. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was delete Nandesuka (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor K

Doctor K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cocktail, I don't know of a speedy deletion criterion for such things. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion for being short/without context Jammy Simpson | Talk | 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

removed tag for speedy - has context. Short is not criteria for speedy deletion.Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete: unable to find any references to establish notability. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The scredriver was not very notable either at one point in time. What makes you think that this drink will not be notable. Have you ever tasted one? Jim Kay 74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimKay3495 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Will be notable" is not the same thing as "is notable". Please read WP:N and WP:RS. Corvus cornix_talk 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And more information at WP:NFT. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unable to find any evidence of notability, or sources - reliable or not. The article Doctor K,, which is almost identical to this, should also be deleted. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is simply the first entry for an item. It is built upon from there. Others will find the reference and add more details about the history and origin. 74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the responsibility of "others" to prove notability, it's the responsibility of the original editor. This discussion will last five days. If valid reliable sources are provided by then, then great. Corvus cornix_talk 05:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.JimKay3495 (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I've redirected the mis-spelt copy of this same article to the one page, for clarity. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - doesn't seem to be notable outside of the asserted mention in a recipe book. If mention in a recipe book is sufficient, Wikipedia would also have to have an article on Edna Staebler's Butternut Squash Brownies. That would seem contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. I'd prefer to see a third-party assertion that this drink is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A recipe in a bartender's guide or the like establishes that the drink exists and isn't something the editor just made up one day, but it's not sufficient to establish notability. Is there an article from a reliable secondary source about this drink specifically? If there were, it might be worth keeping, but I'm not aware of any such article. Chuck (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki A good encyclopaedia article would need more information than a simple recipie. However, this would be well suited for Wikibooks http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bartending/Cocktails. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Moon Knight. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marlene Alraune

Marlene Alraune (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor character in comics books, no reliable sources in article. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, or Merge and redirect to Moon Knight. Major supporting character. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak merge seems to be a character that has appeared quite a lot - it might be the entry just needs improving for now. See this discussion for better solutions to this problem. I'd suggest this might also qualify for a transwiki to the Marvel Comics database. (Emperor (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Merge- as per the Emperor :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the union is notable, if nothing else within context of its parent article. If there are questions of whether the information should more appropriately appear in a parent article, these can be raised separately per Help:Merge. There is not sufficient consensus within this debate to warrant closure as merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loughborough Students' Union

Loughborough Students' Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Merge Student unions are common, and this one is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete SUs are not inheritantly notable, and this article fails to assert notability. _TalkIslander 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Have a look at Category:English students' unions, these unions are notable in British Universities. And to blatantly copy Spanmandoo's rationale from the prior AfD, this particular Union is notable because:
  • It is the only students union to represent three organisations, the university, local colledge, and Royal National Institute for the Blind.
  • it has the largest charitable fundraising total of any union in the country. ^[1]
  • its radio station is responsible for helping launch and entire genre of music back in the 80's.^[2]
  • They have won the british university sporting association cup for 29 years running,leaving all other unions in thier wake.^[3]
  • They are the most ethical and environmentally freindly organisation of its type, having won many national awards in this feild. including the green gown award ^[4], the best bar none award ^[5] and the sound impact award^[6].
  • They Have achieved the higest score in student satisfaction in the national student survey last year proving the outstanding level of support for its community. ^[7]
  • having the oldest student cinema in the country with several hundred capacity^[8] (an acheivemnt in the UK).
  • being one of the biggest performance venues in leicstershire.
  • It is also the only^{[citation needed]} student union in the UK that owns it's own student union building rather than leasing space from the university. --Stephen 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • None of those sources appear on the page. The radio station has its own article. I don't know about intramural sports, and the rest could be merged back to the University article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment "Have a look at Category:English students' unions, these unions are notable in British Universities" - highly debatable. In my opinion, they certainly aren't notable, with some exceptions. Each union must stand on it's own, and must be able to prove notability. _TalkIslander 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep major functional division of universities.DGG (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Long established Union, perhaps notable for being the only tertiary Union in UK. Plus its Athletic Union are first rate. BpEps - t@lk 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• LuffDucKeep. I usually vote to delete SOCs, but at a major university the union itself is always notable enough for inclusion. AndyJones (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • PS I'd also support a merge to the University article. There's an awful lot of unsourced guff in this one. AndyJones (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I belive it was split off form the main article as it was too large, but we live in a cyclical world --Stephen 08:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I see. Although I've gotta say, if you merged the adequately sourced content you'd just have to find room for one short sentence: "Six others were also injured during what was described as a scuffle that broke out after CS gas was sprayed following the event.[2]" This AfD is better-sourced! AndyJones (talk)
• Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and while this one appears to have some hint of notability, it's still not independent. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to keep noms, every universities have a SU, therefore I can't see why this article is really notable. Plus this appalling quality of this article is simply calling for a deletion. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Prose is not a reason for deletion WP:ATD and I find phrases like "...appalling quality of this article is simply calling for a deletion." to be objectionable and completely against Wikipedia policy. If you are trying to inflame other editors that is a great way of going about it. -- BpEps - t@lk 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean that nominated article, not the users hwich is begging for a deletion - it would require too much effort to rewrite the article to make it worthy of this site. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I would tend to think any SU that was able to book the Rolling Stones puts it into a Unique group, and thus notable. The argument that a University serves a purly local group is false and compleatly ignores the notable topic of Student exchange programs in most (if not all) Universities. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• commentThat comment only applies to universities, not SU which is what this nomination is about. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• your impling that Exchange students are not allowed to join the student union, which we all know is not true. People travel a long way to attend perticular Uni's, and then travel a long way after finishing studies. The Influence of the groups they joined there is not "local" for that reason. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Knock off, signing Rolling Stone when they were just a new band, is that a massive achievment, this is like saying I signed Arctic Monkeys to perform at my uni in 2006 and this is this biggest achievment the SU could do, why would signing a band when they new a big deal, I'm sure every new bands will all want to perform for food, why, because I used to be in one myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Pegg (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment, I personally agree, something trivial dressed up as serious notability because of how famous they are now, plus people are paying their weekly salaries to go and see them. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• It would depend on how famed the Arctic Monkeys became and their influence upon culture, dont you think? It is gigs such as this that made them as famed as they are, thus a factor in both their notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep WP:N failure rationale seems poorly considered and seems to have being used for a host of similar AfD's word for word. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• What a load of rubbish, I was going to nominate this all in one, but this is what I was recommended to do, hence why they are nominated separately. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - sincere but pretty blatantly ill-judged nomination that suggests the nominator's other nominations should be removed as wastes of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • On what grounds? These articles have no sources for notability that anybody can find. This is certainly not a snowball case; far from it. It looks more like a case of canvassing and forum shopping on both sides. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Student unions are not mere petty student societies, but an umbrella organisation for all formal student social activities. WP is stuffed full of student American football teams, their coaches etc. , all of which are much less notable. This comment apllies also to any similar nominations below. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment just becase other stuff exists doesn't mean it or this should TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. UK university unions are important places. This is just the sort of article that many readers will look for and be disappointed if they do not find it. It needs some work, but that is not a reason to delete. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • • • To expand my comments, British Student Unions are bound to be notable just by the size of their membership, the range of the clubs and societies they sponsor and the total size of their budget. They just need more references to be found. --Bduke (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Commentand WP:USEFUL and WP:LOSE aren't valid grounds for keep.
      • Both of these come from an essay that states at the top "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it". We are writing for readers you know. It is time notability was more related to what readers expect to find. Also we should not rush to delete stuff that is inadequate, but improve it. --Bduke (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I realise that, but the core issue is that all of these fail WP:ORG. Your grounds for keep aren't based in any policy. These are locally notable orgs, none with encyclopedic notability that's the issue here. There have to be guidelines because there doesn't need to be an article for everything. There are some things that don't belong in an enyclopedia and in my opinion, this is one of them TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Please, point out to me where the 'Local' clause is hiding in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
            • WP:ORG: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Same place it has been every time we have this discussion :) I realise it's a guideline and one you're not particularly fond of but at the top of that page it also says This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I don't particularly care about these student union AfDs and am not as vested as some who are passionate on either side, but I think the clause needs to be acknowledged even though a couple have just closed as no consensus and I doubt this will have one either. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Why do you think this Student Union is local in scope. Students at universities in the UK come from all over the UK. They are not local institutions. Loughborough has a particular country wide feature, that does affect the Student Union. It is really hot on sport, so the best sports people in at least some sports go to Loughborough from all over the country and, guess what, their sport is supported by the Student Union. --Bduke (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Student unions are local in scope because it covers a localized amount of students while attending the university. The students' origins and where they go after they graduate do not factor into the SU at all because the main scope is the serve its current students. Sports has nothing to do with the scope. Don't try to tie in a student union with the university's athletics program. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Student union interact with each other, so they have a national importance. People from other universities will want to read this article. You are misunderstanding a UK organisation which is not like your US organisations. Student Unions in most cases are responsible for all student sport. They are sub societies of the union, like all student socities. From the article it seems that this is the case here. Not surprising. It is normal. A UK student union no more has local scope than the university itself has. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, student unions in the US also put together university sporting events. However, the sports players represent the university, therefore should be described in the "Athletics" section with mention of student union's involvement. That's all there is to it. If the players are not wearing Loughborough Students' Union uniforms (which they're clearly not), then athletics has nothing to do with this organization being notable. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • I'm sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about and the US experience is not relevant. Players at Loughborough will be wearing the colours of their Club, Rugby, Cricket etc and that Club is part of the Student Union, just like the Debating Society and hundreds of other clubs. All these clubs add to the notability of the Union. If articles on the Clubs were started they would probably be merged into the Union article, not the University article. The University has nothing to do with student sport. It is the responsibility of the Union. --Bduke (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(untab)OK, here's my opinion (for the record, I'm a second year student at a UK university, and am fairly involved in our Union, so I'm most definitely not talking from a US point of view ;) ). Though the sporting clubs are a part of the union, when they play other clubs, they play for the University of XYZ, not the University of XYZ's Student Union. They team names are that of the University, not union, and if they win, then the University of XYZ has won, not the UXSU. This, I am farily sure, is standard across the UK, at least in most unis. Not in Loughborough, by the sounds of things. With this logic in mind, the 'local-ness' of a sports club does not increase/decrease that of the union. _TalkIslander 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable per ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Provisional keep but tag as unreferenced. The key question about notability is non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources, and it's pretty unlikely that a student union at a major university fails this criterion. It does need some work: it reads a bit like an on-campus guide more than anything else, but I think it can be salvaged. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ LBoroSU | Home Page
2. ^ https://www.lcr1350.co.uk
3. ^ BUSA Action - BUSA
4. ^ http://www.heepi.org.uk/green%20gown%202006-7/times%20higher%20ad.pdf
5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Bar_None
6. ^ Students’ Unions receive Sound Impact Awards for being green | New Consumer
7. ^ The National Student Survey
8. ^ Flix: Loughborough Students Cinema :: Information

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool Students' Union

Liverpool Students' Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - SUs are not inheritently notable, and this one fails to assert notability through external sources etc. _TalkIslander 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Liverpool John Moores University else Delete per nom & discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep major functional division of universities. almost qall colleges have one, and the ones at the more important colleges and universities are separately notable. DGG (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, how can this SU be notable when all universities have a SU and does that make every SU notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and it's the rare one (not this one) that has any external notability. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into existing university article. SMC (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - winner of 'Best Bar None Awards'. And as in the previous AfD, the argument that a University serves a purly local group is false and compleatly ignores the notable topic of Student exchange programs in most (if not all) Universities. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, are you attempting to say that every bar thart won this award should get their own article, my reply is no, not at all as it will clutter this article. Also this student exchange thing only applies to universities, not SUs. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Bar did not win this award, The SU did. That is notable. Are Exchange students barred from joining the SU? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is this what I call international fame, ha ha ha, don't make me laugh! Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why must it be international? Where is that stipulated? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Knock-Off. Mr McLovin (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG TorstenGuise (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG - needs work but then most articles do. Keith D (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - reasons as Loughborough. I suspect that the reference to Liverpool John Moores University is to the wrong institution and is certainly wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and nom. By the way, the reference to Liverpool John Moores University is correct. The union of the University of Liverpool is the Liverpool Guild of Students. Andy (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Also British Student Unions are bound to be notable just by the size of their membership, the range of other clubs and societies they sponsor and the total size of their budget. They just need references to be found. --Bduke (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the union is notable. If there are questions of whether the information should more appropriately appear in a parent article, these can be raised separately per Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MMUnion

MMUnion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Well, there is nothing notable other than anything trivial. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete UK SUs are not inheritantly notable, and this article fails to assert notability. _TalkIslander 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep major functional division of universities. almost qall colleges have one, and the ones at the more important colleges and universities are separately notable. DGG (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is this one separately notable? Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and it's the rare one (not this one) that has any external notability. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this SU is notable as for 20 years, until the merger of UMIST and Victoria University in Manchester it was the largest non-collegiate University in the country and hence the largest non-collegiate SU in the country. It was also notable as the most left wing SU in the country during the 1980's, (in)famous for its support of the miners during the miners strike. I agree that the content has at times resembled promo leaflet but that has been removed, and yes it can be improved, but Student Unions are, whether they recognise it or not, an integral part of the life of the 50% of 18-21 year olds who go to higher education - from the organisastion of sport and societies, representations and campaigns, democracy and politcal debate, to the advancement of entertainment and a wide and varied social life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrandir1967 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, Yes, student union are notable...but only to those who study at the university and never to those who study outside these faculties because...the students get told about them on their freshman week, thats why. My pure reason to nominate this for deletion is, this article is nothing but pure spam, a total misuse of this site of you all tell me, plus there is nothing that is salvageable in this site for it to stay. In all student unions are only notable to those who studied at the faculty, not to mention that every educational faculties have one. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Freshman? Studied at the faculty? Do you know anything about UK students' unions? This sounds like a American attack to me! Andy (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Come on, let's keep it civil... It seems fairly clear that Knock-off-Nigel speaks from an American viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly doesn't warrent any 'attack' comments, but regardles, hear me out (me being a second year Physics student at a UK university, me being fairly heavily involved in my Union, me being well aware of what UK SUs are). Student Unions are notable as a whole. Individual SUs are not. They are all pretty much carbon copies of one another - sure, one union will have slightly different policies than another, but on the whole they'll be the same. As I've said many a time, there are exceptions - a few UK SUs are notable, and they have the sources to back them up. Most, however, do not. I'm interested: you are completely insistant that SUs are notable. Why is this particular SU notable? How does it meet the WP:N guidelines? I await your response. _TalkIslander 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to Andymmu OK, I mean freshers, I used to study in a university in the UK, I use the word to incorporate colleges and universities together. Personally, I agree with the islander's comment that a few of them are notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reply to Islander That'll teach my for not checking Wikipedia for a few days! In answer to your question, I simply believe that an organization with over 33,000 members is notable. As far as WP:N is concerned, I'm not going to pretend that this article clearly passes but the union's history in its support for the minors' strike looks to give it notability with WP:N#TEMP. Unfortunately, I know little about the details of this. Perhaps Mithrandir1967 could fill in any info he's got. Andy (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Mithrandir1967. Plus this article had already reached no consensus to delete in December. I don't think it's been long enough to nominate it again. Is this a campaign by numbers? Andy (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My reason is this appalling quality of this article which serves to spam its service, therefore it deserves to be deleted, plus I only came across this recently and disagree on its original verdict. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality alone is not grounds for deletion please consult WP:ATD. -- BpEps - t@lk 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean that there is no other useful third party sources there other than some trivial fact about some reality TV show pop puppet and some scandals and other trivial things. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Union with a rich history (formally MPSU) -- BpEps - t@lk 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What rich history. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Knock-Off Nigel, you have to remember that many of the people commenting here are not familiar with all the policies and guidelines, and the idea is to gently educate them. Given that he called it "formerly MPSU", perhaps he could actually lead us to some sources that would confer notability on this organization. Paddy Simcox (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ok I can't find much about (MPSU) it was before the internet. There is a new "article hit counter" - actually the figures aren't glowing avg. 210 hits for MMU WP hit counter MMU Dec07, I'm not sure why the current cull on Students' Unions, they are the breeding ground for the next generation of politicians (lol don't quote WP:CRYSTAL) and have much higher membership figures than mainstream political orgaisations. However I can't offer very much more sourcing. -- BpEps - t@lk 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Reason given for failing WP:N as watertight as the Titanic. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really think it is that notable on its own, considering every university have its own SU. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the union is notable and all students belong to it. It has been kept on previous AfD ad its status has not changed since then. Keith D (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to be crystal clear, it wasn't kept as such in the last AfD - merely defaulted to keep as there was no concencus, as will possibly be the case here. _TalkIslander 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - reasons as Loughborough, but the title needs attention sicne it contains an abbreviation, possibly MMUnion (Manchester Metrolopitan University). Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The title refers to what is currently the correct name of the union. Manchester Metropolitan Students' Union redirects to the article. Andy (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per WP:ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment nobody is saying to remove all information on these, just that it needs to be on the university's page. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's up with replying to every argument? Let others make their arguments and the closing admin will make their decision based on their strength. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep though it may need some work. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily grounds for deletion. There are third party references and sources cited, which is the important thing, and though it needs some more, these shouldn't be too hard to find. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diamanda Nero

Diamanda Nero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources attest to the notability of this comic book character. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, or Merge and redirect to Apocalypse (comics). BOZ (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this character is of great importance to the backstory of Rachel Summers.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - there is no independent third-party sourcing of this article. WP:N and WP:RS fail. Wikipedia doesn't determine this character's notability - third-party sources do. Also, this article contains no proof of any real-world notability - i.e., of notability outside of the Marvel universe. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge following BOZ. Also a transwiki would be in order. See this discussion for better solutions to this issue. (Emperor (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
• Delete per Hypnotoad. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• you may merge it with racheal summers, apocalypes, or List of minor x-men characters. Don't just delete it, because this is wikipedia--there are a lot of articles that are more useless than this one. besides, there would be a lot of red links if this was deleted. No reason to delete. merge if you must. 98.212.249.162 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable third party sources can be found to establish that this is not just a minor character. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a valid argument against deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge the useful part to Apocalypse (comics). Bearian (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with no prejudice to separation and restoration as a separate article given sufficient sourced content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Golik

Matt Golik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Mayor of small town (~2000 people), not notable prior to reports of death WWGB (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Merge The merge will work with the main article. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete 10 years? Hardly remarkable. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• D NN dead mayor of a town of 2000, can't write a bio of this person from WP:RS -- Y not be working? 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Upon further consideration, I am also ok with slight merge into Wolf Point, Montana -- Y not be working? 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I feel that the merge would be a better decision. It wold work with the Government section. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, but does not merit a standalone biography. Punkmorten (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Surely this can be added to the main article. It certainly doesn't warrant it's own entry. Yorkie19 (talk)11.06 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly seems to pass the criteria for politicians at WP:BIO. faithless (^speak) 05:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep Appears to meet WP:BIO, but might make more sense to merge to the article on the town if we don't have much info about him. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Yorkie19. There isn't enough information here to go on to warrant a separate article. More information can be added in the main article after all, then if it grows to more than about a paragraph with third party references, this separate article can always be reinstated. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Five finger death punch (card game)

Five finger death punch (card game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sourced assertion of notability, just an uncited "stir amongst the media". From the talk of merchandise and world champions with funny names, this seems pretty obviously WP:MADEUP. McGeddon (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There is a band with this name, but all evidence suggests that the card game is a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless said "stir amongst the media" can be documented and added to this article... -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep How can you say that a game dosent exist?! This is illogical, just because you havn't hear of it dosn't mean i dosent exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nialljames (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — Nialljames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Wikipedia policy requires that all information be verifiable. If we haven't heard of it, it means that we need proof that it exists. If what you say is true, and this is a media sensation, then surely you could provide some evidence of media coverage. If not, then we will have to conclude that this article is a hoax. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete complete hoax. Nothing found googling. All Google News results are for the band (so much for the "stir amongst the media") Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Card game appears to have been made up by article creator, cliams of its fame seem suspect at best. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - consider speedy as hoax? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think u'll find that it is a true card game cos we play it in college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.68.240 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) — 81.103.68.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:MADEUP means "made up in college one day" rather than "fictional". Until they hit the mainstream and get some coverage from newspapers, magazines or major blogs, things which are made up in college one day don't merit Wikipedia articles. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. 2005 (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete The JPS^{talk to me} 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homie Joe

Homie Joe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another webcomic article which does not establish notability. Mix^Sup? 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as tagged. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Local Asynchronous Satellite Hookup

Local Asynchronous Satellite Hookup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete.Vice regent 14:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, nowhere near notable. This review site[1] is about 7 or 8 in a Google search for lash+game+satellite... and it's attracted 20 votes in 8 years. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

delete - non-notable game, per previous prod. No proof of notability. Fail WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was delete, and it sounds like the relevant info has already been merged. Nandesuka (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft Launcher

World of Warcraft Launcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a program that launches World of Warcraft, and as notability is not inherited, there needs to be a real assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, without a doubt. This is literally just one screen that pops up before the actual game loads up so that it can show news before you log in. There is absolutely no notability to be inferred here. A note on the page for World of Warcraft itself wouldn't be out of line but it really shouldn't be an article on its own. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Exterminate, good lord, individual game screens require articles now? Mix^Sup? 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into World of Warcraft. --Pixelface (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect, since I already merged it into World of Warcraft. --Pixelface (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nerf (delete). I'm a WoW fan, and even I can't find anything notable about how the program launches. -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge- Non-notable, does not warrant it's own article. Merge into the World of Warcraft article, or delete. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete One wiki entry isn't substantial secondary coverage. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Merging also would be reasonable, but I can't see how mentioning the launcher application would add anything to the main article. --Minimaki (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep, depending on votes. This is not double voting, this article is obviously notable so why should we delete this at all? Hell, why is every voting Deleting? If you want to merge, then merge. Ellomate (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • But it isn't notable. There isn't enough non-trivial third party coverage to produce notability; just because WoW is notable doesn't mean this is. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge The WoW launcher has no importance. Merge into WoW main article or delete altogether. --Brokenspirits (talk) 18:21 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, remove the content from World of Warcraft or slash it down to a sentence or two, it's a ridiculously long section for the loader window of the game, in an article already groaning under excessive detail. --Stormie (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks the individuality that is needed for an article on Wikipedia. User:Krator (t c) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - I took an axe to its section on WoW, unknowing of the AfD, which shortened the list to a paragraph of propose, while keeping the paragraph on Warden. The paragraph on Warden could probably be further diminished, as it does have its own article. --Izno (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzard Downloader

Blizzard Downloader (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and is just a downloading program for Blizzard games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is not inherited, and although this is less clear-cut than the Launcher nomination, I can't really find much in the way of reliable third party sources on a google search. Also, the article as it is is little more than a how-to guide of avoiding using it; and whilst that isn't reason to delete (just cleanup) it doesn't really show this article in any favourable light. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Mix^Sup? 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into World of Warcraft. That Blizzard uses a BitTorrent client to distribute game files is quite notable in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This one's a harder call, as an argument could be made that the program is a proof-of-concept of a "legitimate" use of BitTorrent technology. That being said, unless someone were to add a source claiming this, it is merely my OR supposition... -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A few perl scripts that use its output isn't substantial independent coverage. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The information seems interesting, and if better sources are found, a mention in the World of Warcraft or BitTorrent client articles might make sense. For a stand-alone article, it should follow along the lines of WP:N like any other software article though. --Minimaki (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable IMO ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you elaborate? I fail to see how it is notable specifically because of a lack of non-trivial third party coverage in reliable sources, which is, in Wikipedia policy, the definition of notability. Have you got any sources that provide such coverage? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, it was mentioned in The Register[2]. --Pixelface (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That is both a trivial mention and not "significant coverage", really... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and mention in WoW article. Bardcom (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Button

David Button (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation after deletion via PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). " - has played at the highest level of amateur sports. 12:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo online (talk • contribs)
  • Which sport is that? The article only mentions football. robwingfield ^«T•C» 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - article doesn't really say anything about him outside of his existence. I'd gladly change this vote to a strong keep if only some independent source material can be added to make this more than a stub. Has he been interviewed at length in a sport magazine anywhere? Has anyone ever done a feature on him? If so, I'd feel that'd make him notable: add those links and I'd change my vote to keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete nn BanRay 11:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow of the Banhammer

Shadow of the Banhammer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable movie that has no reliable sources to verify any notability. Contested prod, bringing to AfD for discussion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability. This doesn't seem to have any secondary sources having significant coverage about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Userify as a harmless in-joke. It certainly doesn't merit an article. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of notability, coupled with it just being a joke it seems. Jmlk17 10:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• We Assure you. The Film's no Joke. Just where would the screenshots come from? They do not just generate themselves.--72.130.160.178 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  A comment - the screenshots and clips look very cool (IMHO), but that's all you have so far. Even if you're serious, how can a garage film project like this be notable before anyone has ever watched it? Finish the film and get a distributor for it (or at least a few thousand Youtube viewers) and then it *might* become notable. See the policy page for more info. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, explicitly fails WP:MOVIE, doesn't have any sources other than to Youtube which in itself is a copyright violation and doesn't assert notability at all. The Dominator (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How can we Violate our own copyright?--72.130.160.178 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't believe Youtube releases their content on GFDL, and judging by your response, it seems like we might have a conflict of interests here... The Dominator (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So now what you're implying is that in order advance their own person interests, the MNG placed an article on a site that is blocked from most business and educational network systems and not work-citable on any form of official research? I believe that if promotion was the goal, we'd have just created a website. The Article is here so that Wikipedia has it first. When users want to search the film and the website is not yet up, they'll be able to come to Wiki and find out a small bit about it. That will be problematic if the articles been deleted. And it will certainly be problematic if it ever needs to be added again, yet the server shows it as having been deleted. Let us avoid redundancy and keep the article present, that it may now discredit the name of Wikipedia in it's absense.

Nope, no reliable secondary sources exist, if the film becomes notable and reliable secondary sources come to light, there will be no problem with recreating although I highly doubt that it will ever be significant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for creating a website. The Dominator (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you haven't FOUND any reliable secondary sources. But your oversightful form of diction seems to work just as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.160.178 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have grasped Wikipedia's notability policy. Have major newspapers written articles about your movie? Have there been books written about the filmmakers that include this film? Has this film been a theatrical release? I seriously doubt that you could answer "yes" to any of those questions, therefore it isn't anywhere near staying on Wikipedia. I suggest reading WP:MOVIE which creates the exact criteria for film notability. The Dominator (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying it that all the producers need to do is get the New York Times to write about their film, release it in the AMC theater, and get respective biographers to dedicate books to them? Sounds simple enough. Although, provided that all of this is available for any film article that exists on Wikipedia, precisely what is Wikipedia doing that all the other sources are not. Notability is more than just the first link you can find on google. --72.130.160.178 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough! Read WP:MOVIE, it clearly says that for a movie to be notable, at least two nationally known critics have had to review it. The Dominator (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We are a nation apart. What critic is really nationally known?--72.130.160.178 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

one that has worked for as a main critic for a major newspaper; I see that you won't ever read WP:MOVIE so here is the general guidelines:

"As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline. The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following: * Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with attribution in reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist: 1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. * The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."

The point is, that a topic has no chance of staying unless it has been covered by reliable secondary sources, therefore as you said, YES, a news article does have to be written about your film before it's notable. I also suggest you read: WP:CoI. The Dominator (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If we pulled a local news article about it, I doubt any of you would refrain from dying to delete it. If fact, we'd try to post the news article on Wiki, and it would probably be speedy deleted before any of you ever had the chance to see it. Everyone seems to be so trigger happy with the deletion gun.--72.130.160.178 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet you STILL haven't answered the question, where are your sources? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, where are your sources? If you pull a local news article about it, it won't be deleted if you add it into the article per WP:CITE, also read WP:V a local news article alone does not make something notable. Still, I doubt you'll even find a local news article. The Dominator (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Erik. Risker (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The definition of country mile already exists on Wiktionary. Speculation on the etymology is unsourced, but I will gladly make this content available to anyone who would like to transwiki it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country mile

Country mile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: WP is not a dictionary. There's nothing particularly notable about the term "country mile", and there's nothing particularly notable about the concept the word refers to. The article currently waffles on about unverifiable possible original research about the term's origin and is not becoming of an encyclopedia. —Felix the Cassowary 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Urbandictionary is over there.... — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment neologism does not refer to words that are included in dictionaries. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about that...! I searched Collins and didn't find anything, and since I've never heard the term, decided it was something made up. Maybe it's more common in the US than on this side of the pond? Anyway, it's still just a dictionary definition, so my delete vote stands. — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 10:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is already in Wiktionary.[3] Although a fairly common informal phrase, it's not particularly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since this article is about the etymology of the phrase, the information it contains should be in wiktionary. Waqqasd (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with Waqqasd. Risker (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that the confirmable aspects of this article (i.e. the definition of it being a long way) is already in Wiktionary. Before you copy the etymologies or the claim that it's "greater than a mile", you should actually check to make sure the definitions are anything more than an editor bullshitting along to make the article longer than half a sentence. As it stands I doubt anything in the Wikipedia article not in the Wiktionary article is worth any more than the photons it's displayed with. —Felix the Cassowary 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Does no harm, and is one of the obscure, but interesting pages that ALoan was famous for. It will come in useful one day. Giano (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"waffles on about unverifiable possible original research"? "not becoming"? "bullshitting"? Sp this is what passes for civilised debate on Wikipedia, hmm?

Some entirely unoriginal research at Google provides evidence for most of this:

• Now You Know Almost Everything (2005), p.74

"A country mile is an exaggeration of [a statute mile]. Rural roads in Britain twist and turn through the countryside...the real distance travelled on a winding road will be considerably greater than "as the crow flies"..."

• Picturesque Expressions: A Thematic Dictionary (1985), p.281

"Country mile has come to mean a greater distance than a regular mile, because distances seem greater when one is out in the open spaces of the country..."

plus this website:

"I assume walking a mile on country terrain takes longer than in urban terrain...."

"I can imagine another possible origin: the supposed habit of country people of giving optimistically imprecise directions. "

Whether this is notable or not, or should be "transwiki"ed, is another matter. Is there anything notable about the New York minute, or Internet time? -- Testing times (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I said "you should check to make sure" it's anything more than what it looks like to me. It is not my fault if someone writes an unnecessary article that looks bad. I will tell you why it looks bad and why it's unnecessary, and I won't apologise for it. I'm not criticising whoever wrote it (I don't even know who did!).

In any case, I advise you to continue looking; the sources you provide do not look particularly good. Notice how the first source you provide leads with the expression "to miss by a country mile"—certainly in my experience, no-one misses anything by more than a mile when this expression is used; instead, they might've thrown something into a bin in the corner of a room, and it landed in the middle of the wall, or they might not even have come close to getting a behind in football, let alone a goal. The definitions included in respectable dictionaries—which do not provide etymologies—are consistently that it is simply a long distance, without anything more, clearly indicating that "long" is to be interpreted by context.

But before you do, notice that sources for definitions of words are in fact not books defining them, but examples of their use. You would need to show me that either no other usages of the word existed, or that any other uses were widely regarded as mistakes. Look at any respectable dictionary; they provide examples of words, not references to popular texts.

—Felix the Cassowary 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:DICT. Also there are no references or sources cited. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Bogosian

Zach Bogosian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior player who has not yet played professionally so thus fails WP:N. Can be readded when/if he ever plays professionally or does something like win a major award that otherwise indicates notability. Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Hasn't played professionally and hasn't played at highest available level of amateur so fails WP:ATHLETE.--JD554 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment He looks like he'll be a first round pick, if not a top 10 pick, this June. Does this make him notable? Patken4 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It will once he is drafted at such a position. It is definately not a for sure thing yet so falls under WP:Crystal. Angelo Esposito is a perfect example. For years was expected to go #1 and nearly fell out of the first round. As it is right now, we tend to only allow players who have been drafted in the first round stay (or who have won awards) if they haven't played a professional game. -Djsasso (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Cherepanov is another good example of a player who tumbled down the draft list. Agreed. Once he is drafted in the first round, recreate his article. Resolute 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusionmix (talk • contribs)
• Transwiki to icehockey.wikia.com. Powers ^T 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have transwikied it now, forgot to mention I would automatically transwiki it if it were deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Resolute 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wait till he's drafted then he might be notable, right now though he's just a junior player, therefore he lacks notability. Raphie (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, per comments here and the umpteen number of previous deletions of articles describing the exact same thing. See 6DOW. Besides, this was originally listed as a "textbook example" of NFT, for crying out loud). Please use the User: and Wikipedia: namespace for this kind of stuff unless you have actual sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Races

Wiki Races (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, no reliable sources, etc. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per above - this perfectly qualifies as an NFT situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally proposed deletion but it got shot down, because it was "sourced". Sourced with what? Something made up one day? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, lacks reliable sources, original research. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki races.--TBC!?! 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —dima/talk/ 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Exterminate, per all of the above. Mix^Sup? 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Films

Clean Films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company no longer exists (not even sure how much it really did exist beyond a local Utah community in the first place). Links provided are not to reliable sources from which to establish any notability. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of sources for the lawsuit, I'm withdrawing the AfD nomination. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I had speedied this earlier as non-notable. Links have been added since, but they don't seem to show more than a sketchy notability many years past. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I know this is a weak arguement, but I know I read about the company and the lawsuit from some sort of reliable source. I'll try to look for them later but I'm confident that they exist.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's one to start [4]--Cube lurker (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And also reported in The Seatle Times [5] and FoxNews website [6]I feel there's strong notability increased by the fact that it no longer exists. The fact that it was shut down due to the DGA lawsuit waas widely reported.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I tried to do a bit of a clean-up and re-wrote the section on the lawsuit. I'm sure it could use more work, but I hope it looks better and shows notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Cube lurker. I remember actually reading about this, and it is noteworthy. JuJube (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per found sources. matt91486 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ducana

Ducana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's mostly recipe violating WP:HOWTO, but there's also no evidence of notability for this dish. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is both less and more than a recipe. It doesn't give precise instructions for preparing the dish (such as proportions of the ingredients), but it does give encyclopedic information about what sort of dish it is and what it is eaten with. Sources are available at Google Books and Google news. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment no question the dish exists, but I see no evidence of its notability. I don't think we need an article on every dish unless they're a notable dish of a region i.e. Tabasco sauce or have historical significance i.e. Absinthe TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Those sources show that this is a notable dish of Antigua. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, they show it's a dish eaten in Antigua, not that it's in any way notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the extensive inclusion in travel books and articles identifying the dish and its assocaition with local Antiguan cuisine establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ebony Cactus

The Ebony Cactus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only [RS mention] is in one member's byline, nothing about the org itself. Ghits are primarily forum posts, directory links, podcast downloads and driveby mentions of those involved. No evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; fails WP:WEB. Jfire (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was no consensus, keep. Nandesuka (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Echo Ranch Bible Camp

Echo Ranch Bible Camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small amount of local coverage but no evidence of notability per WP:CORP and local organizations. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - coverage appears to be statewide, and that's a BIG state. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Weak Keep - I seconde Bearians statement, but I do think more information and sources are needed. --SelfQ (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per vegaswikian. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G4. Acalamari 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Pussycat Dolls Second Studio Album.

The Pussycat Dolls Second Studio Album. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL; a new album being announced does not mean we have to have a page on it. It probably will one day exist, but with almost no information available there is nothing to create a Wikipedia page on it with. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverified article on a tentative future release based on a single blog post.--TBC!?! 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G4. The last AfD closed just this morning as delete. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aptina

Aptina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article in the current state is so badly written that it is unsalvageable. It is written entirely as an advertisement, and no amount of tinkering will change that. My recommendation is: Delete current version, but without prejudice against recreation as a real encyclopedic article, by an uninvolved editor. To summarize: there is nothing in the current version that is worth keeping; the subject itself may (or may not) be notable, and a good article may (possibly) be written about it; but this just isn't it, this is a blatant, horrible piece of advertising. If there should be an article on this topic, it must be re-written from scratch. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as hopeless spam for probably-non-notable (just announced today!) by badly-COI editor. Creator has admitted to having a relationship to the company and has threatened to real-world investigate another WP user who revealed the existance of this product line before it was supposed to be public, so his "I saw a press release" genesis for the article is how shall I say, a load of crap. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Really, "load of crap? Sorry. I thought it was honest. Since I was looking at the press release. I did not write the release. SoTureForYou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Further, what qualifies as notable? The division has about 600 employees and is the second largest maker of CMOS image sensors in the world. Last, year it was the largest, but fell to number two when its largest customer stumbled. And I mentioned the fact that the company stumbled in the article. I thought I was providing a neutral point of view by mentioning that it had fallen to the 2nd position. If it was spam, as you conjecture, why would I have included that fact?SoTureForYou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• It is true I do have a relationship with the company. But 90-percent of the folks that post on wikipedia have a relationship to their topic. Aptina was slandered last week. DMacks knows that as DMacks deleted the slander. We were trying to provide a good baseline about this company so that it could get fair treatment. As much as possible, I have tried to link to outside articles. I have been using Intel and other company listings as a sort of model. SoTureForYou (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)SoTureForYou (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's pretty spammy, there. I'd suggest a merge of key points into the Micron Technologies article, and if one day the Aptina division is notable on its own, then create a standalone article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, I understand your suggestion to add this content to the Micron article, but Aptina was seperated for sale. It is likely to be a stand alone company this year. It is also very important in the industry. If you own a camera phone, there is a 33-percent chance it has an Aptina CMOS image sensor on board.

• Delete per WP:SPAM. Someone needs to do something about all those images with big ol' Aptina logos and no licensing information, as well. (I'm not familiar enough with image deletion to know what to do.) Deor (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• What would be an approiate size for the images? The company makes image sensors. I noticed that Nikon has several product images in their article. Why is showing a company's product, as in the Nikon case wrong?SoTureForYou (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Nikon article has pictures of Nikon products. This one, on the other hand, has galleries of images made with the product, and many of them bear a logo that could be construed as advertising. The main problem,, however, is that the image uploads lack any licensing information—for them to be on Wikipedia, whoever holds the copyright has to release them under a free license, essentially allowing anyone to reuse them (with acknowledgment) in any way they see fit. Deor (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you think I am a poor writer. I am trying now to improve it. It meets all of the neutral writting standards I have been able to find. So I am not sure what else you suggest. Also regarding the images, I do not understand why these are a problem. I have checked out several company articles all of which include product images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTureForYou (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Spam and WP:CRYSTAL violation. A new article may be needed someday, but this isn't it.
• Delete as spam. Note also there are large swaths of copyright violations such as text taken verbatim from here -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• All of the material is attributed or used with permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTureForYou (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Prall

Dick Prall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Non-notable musician. No sources aside from generic link to his label (which is not a major label or recognized indie). Cannot verify claims about musicians he's worked with or use of his music in various ad campaigns. Fails WP:MUSIC. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Despite working alongside Michelle Branch and Mike Doughty, Mr Prall is not notable. Axl (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Also, article was created by WP:SPA. Add an 'M' to that and you get my drift. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, I don't get your drift. Axl (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's spell it out. SPA + M = SPAM. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM. Klar? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian church directory

Christian church directory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Directory, and duplicates existing list article Tb (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR, also duplicates List of Christian denominations Tb (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

See also WP:Templates for deletion#Template:Christian_Church_Directory and WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_29#Category:Find_a_Christian_church. Tb (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, duplicates List of Christian denominations. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Article is a duplicate of List of Christian denominations Steve Crossin (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per all of the above. -- SECisek (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] BeoCom

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BeoCom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:N Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I see some coverage in design mags. I'm not at all familiar with the product but it appears that it may be notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are a range of articles over several years. Mangoe (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Coverage in the International Herald Tribune and New York Times. Jfire (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources found by Jfire. --Pixelface (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable product, design has been talked about in many places. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, since the lack of reliable sources necessary for a biography has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tove Jensen

Tove Jensen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was prodded twice ignoring prior AFD. This new AFD is one year later. Same issue still there. No reliable sources to verify notability under WP:BIO. There is not even a claim of importance or significance of the subject either. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Tove has been a widely known porn legend for 30 years, but I have never seen anything about her from a credible source. Aside from a small, but memorable body of work, there are few facts and stories conflict. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Thoroughly invisible in GNews Archive, GBooks and GScholar. The only web sources appear to be non-independent, forums, or blogs. Given some claims that she may have been underage, when the only cited thing in the article is her age and the source is IMDB, we're treading on very thin ice. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep - Searches should probably be made under the working alias Tiny Tove, and not her real name. With that in mind, while I can admit it seems a non-notable topic, Dhartung's source found above may indicate that Wikipedia should perhaps have something about this person, considering the content of that article. I'd have to assume SOMETHING must exist out there about her, and given the ambivalent legal status of her works she seems notable enough for here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The Internet trading of Tove images led to one of the first digital copyright infringement cases. Out of the thousands of Color Climax performers, Tove is one of only a few that CC advertises by name on their website. Tove is also at the center of what appears to be a whistleblower blog as noted above. The DOJ has successfully prosecuted her footage as child pornography, sometime in the '90's, yet allow the continued distribution of the same footage. In essense, it's notable that the companies that own the Tove copyrights, and the DOJ that owns the conviction of her footage, have not produced verifiable information regarding Tove. Even after a U.S. Senator requested an investigation into one of the companies that are distributing the prosecuted footage. In short, Tove is currently at the center of a conspiracy regarding the legality of her productions which could affect millions of individuals, and calls into question the conduct of federal officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazz (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can this assertion be verified by independent reliable secondary sources as required under WP:N and WP:V? So far the evidence for notability comes from blogs or primary sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment As a lawyer you know that the "best evidence" is the primary source. In this case, it's the court documents and related correspondence (albeit redacted), the contents of which are supported by links to secondary sources. To me, they carry the same weight as if they were posted on Wikileaks or a filehosting site. I don't see how a secondary source could verify a court transcript or personal correspondence anymore than Wikileaks can verify annonymous uploaded email correspondence. And good luck getting any of the identified agencies (FBI, U.S. Senate, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service) to confirm any of those documents, one of which retains the signature. Which leads into a point I was making. The lack of verifiability is part of what makes Tove notable. To use Nandesuka's example below, compare the Traci Lords article to Tove's. Both had their commercial productions prosecuted by federal authorities, but only Lords created national hysteria, and a mass destruction of her titles, and continued prosecution of their possesion, distribution etc. Which is the main reason we know so much about Lords. Why would Tove be any different? That said, there's no argument that the article in its current form is lacking, but fixing it presents a dilema. If you don't believe the court documents on the whistleblower blog, then one is free to update the article, with links and fair use photos consistent with the DVD releases of her productions. If the court documents gives one pause as to whether to add a link or photo, that in itself is notable as you are engaging in self-censorship. Something at least one website has done. Nazz (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: Irrelevant. WP:V clearly states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" while WP:PSTS states, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The difference between Traci Lords and Tiny Tove is that Traci is notable because she's been the subject of extensive coverage by mainstream media. Vinh1313 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of reliable sources. Tove Jensen clearly is "notable" and would be deserving of an article if reliable sources could be found on her. One of the most interesting things about Tove is that she is one of a very small number of late-1970's era Color Climax "loop" actresses who can be consistently identified by name. Unfortunately, all of the material that exists about her consists of fan/forum quality "urban legend" type material, combined with marketing material from Color Climax. There's simply no reliable independent sources that tell us anything about who she is or her career arc. For comparison, look at the article on Bodil Joensen, also an 'underground' phenom porn star, and note the variety and quality of the sources therein. Given the disparity here, I don't think this article on Tove Jensen is salvagable: a name, a birthday, and a list of movie titles simply isn't enough to have a meaningful encyclopedia article. Nandesuka (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Just more NN porn spam. --RucasHost (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete if Nazz can find any reliable sources to back up what he is saying then keep, otherwise this needs to go. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chalik

Chalik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was speedy-deleted three times under A7 as non-notable, but the same editor keeps creating the page again. To prevent having to go through this process ad infinitum, let's have a full discussion and then delete. Just asserting that someone took a lot of photographs and that some people kept the prints does not make the photographer notable. Russ (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest delete possible, would say speedy except then it can be created again. Badly fails WP:N and WP:V. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:V and hence WP:N. If it is deleted at AfD then it can be at least speedied as a recreation of previously deleted (by consensus) material if the author add the page again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (A7, no assertion of significance) and salt. Deor (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pipeline Radio

Pipeline Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completed unfinsished nom for Damansky (talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, I cast an unbiased delete, as this article doesn't really assert notability for the station, and pirate stations aren't inherently notable. Also, that's quite a lot of ^{[citation needed]} tags, no? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable unlicensed radio station. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable amateur radio presenter. - User:sandel27 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame that Big Brother should be able to delete a radio station and its history, we should therefore delete God! as maybe he is not real and just a rumour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonttu (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for your thoughtful and well-thought-out response, Jonttu. This user has attempted to engage in debate via private e-mail, which I told him is against the policy of Wikipedia regarding AfD discussions. He has refused to abide by this policy, so I posted the text of those messages on his user talk page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. faithless (^speak) 05:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KIDPOWER

KIDPOWER (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no indication that this organisation is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete there's a longer and more detailed history at their site, but neither that nor the article shows any particular reason why this should be included in an encyclopedia. 18 Google news hits, none of which seem to be primarily about Kidpower itself as far as I could tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs references added, but that is a reason to edit, not to delete, when references exist (even if behind paywall). Via Google News Archive search I found several which appear to show the notability of the subject of the article: The Record, 2001 , PR Newswire, 2006: SmithMicro supports Kidpower , Daily Herald, 1995 I read this via Newspaperarchive (subscription) and it is a story featuring the subject of this Wikipedia article. It says the organization is nationwide and active in many areas) , Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 1996- feature story about the organization , San Jose Mercury News, 1996 , San Jose Mercury News, 2002 , San Jose Mercury News, 1994 , The Gazette, 2000 , Daily Herald, 2004 , San Jose Mercury News, 2002 , Los Angeles Times, 1993 , San Jose Mercury News 1993 , St. Paul Pioneer Press 1994 , Deseret News 1997. There are a great many more articles there about this organization. Such easy finding of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage from different areas of the U.S. and over a long span of years easily satisfies WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are way more than 18 Google News hits - you need to click on "all dates" on the left to get the full number - 329 when I just tried it, including lots of substantial ones on top of those already listed by Edison. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as discussion shows, woefully inadequate nomination that brings the nominator's (sincere, but clearly not up to the task) judgement into strong question and suggests any other present and future nominations should be closely examined for possible removal as wastes of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon?!?! Disagree with me all you want, and yes, Edison has made an excellent case for this article to be kept, but this comment is really uncalled for. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of sources exist for article expansion. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatnigs

The Beatnigs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. I deleted this as A7 for lack of an assertion of notability, but the article actually does assert notability by having being a former band of Michael Franti. I'm not 100% convinced of this band's notability, so I have brought this here for discussion. The only reference is a very short All Music article. Coredesat 18:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep The AMG bio seems to be a decent source, and they did have an album on Alternative Tentacles, which seems to be a very notable label (with a neat name, no less). However, I'm not finding much more about them, so I say only weak keep. Alternatively, I guess it could be merged to Michael Franti. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)w
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Could make a redirect to existing section in Franti's article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Suggest against a redirect to Franti on the grounds that another member of The Beatnigs, Rono Tse, also deserves his own article. One LP and an EP on Alternative tentacles (the EP was a remix by Adrian Sherwood), plus they recorded for the Peel Sessions, I suggest this last item demonstrates notability. The Alternative Tentacles website blurb for the reissue of the LP mentions "As heard on "Democracy Now" 2/9/06,"; I havn't listened to the show to see what this refers too, but note that searching for "Beatnigs" on the DN website turns up six different stories (all with Franti as focus, but I think if they mention the Beatnigs everytime they introduce him, that suggests that the Beatnigs are notable). Beatnigs concert review in the New York Times [7], more New York Times coverage (documenting Beatnigs participation in the New Music Seminar) [8]. I count nine links to this article from WP mainspace. Lastly, thanks to Coredesat for undeleting the article and sending here, as I had requested. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete! Who would even contest, this isnt a speedy? --Camaeron (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Quite a number of people, by the looks of it. Being a former band of Michael Franti means that it can be considered to have passed one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC (as well as asserting the notability required to avoid being a speedy candidate) - an album on Alternative Tentacles is half-way to another of the criteria. A weak keep, or failing that a redirect to Franti's article, seem much more useful outcomes than a speedy deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A quick Google Books search shows several references to the Beatnigs. I'd say they meet criteria 1, 5, and 6 of WP:MUSIC. Klausness (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment - Democracy Now! is a minor podcast-level radio program. It wouldn't normally be accepted as a source for anything on Wikipedia. Being on Alternative Tentacles does certainly meet WP:MUSIC as that's a major and important independent label... but where's the proof that this article passes WP:RS and WP:N? There aren't even any sources given, except for a few reviews - certainly not a sufficient asserton of notability to pass WP:N. Probably the best that can be done is a redirect to Franti. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  Reliable sources provided in the form of two New York Times pieces, one academic journal and assorted books. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator. Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD, and possible removal of any other nominations for wasting AFD time with silliness like this. (Note I do not question sincerity, merely quality of judgement) - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

note that the article was not in anything like its present state when originally speedy deleted, it met the criteria for speedy deletion, and was undeleted by the nominator, and sent here to AfD, at my request. I can find no fault with the nominators actions, and suggest you rethink your comments, consider applying some AGF etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple sources. Recommend nominator cease from nominating similar articles for deletion. Catchpole (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as it stands now, has good sources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changeling (Eberron)

Changeling (Eberron) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

More maintenance tags than you can poke a stick at. Yet another personal essay on a D&D character class which says nothing much beyond what you'd find at changeling. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - another badly-written article about a subject of very limited interest. Deb (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the directly above comment...--Camaeron (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of real-world notability, only sources are game manuals, pure game guide material. --Stormie (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Multiple maintenance tags make a bad article do not. References in the process of being added, looking for proof of notability, otherwise perhaps merge into the main eberron page?--Hazel77 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources, no sourced assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No sources. --MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect into Eberron. BOZ (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not Merge: Changelings already have a paragraph devoted to them in the Eberron article, same as the other three Eberron-specific races; any more than that would be undue weight. --Ig8887 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. An article like this with a heavy in-universe perspective treats the fictional narrative as it it were the real thing, but completely ignornes the requirements of WP:WAF for real-world context and sourced analysis. There is no content worth merging or keeping.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Send in Majik XII. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable. shadzar-talk 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Seicer, g1. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Moofe Time (UMT)

Universal Moofe Time (UMT) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax, in my opinion. Jackaranga (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Or at least not at all notable, I'm not even sure what this is about, sorry if I am misunderstanding something. Jackaranga (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G3 Appears to be a hoax, absolutely nothing turns up on Google. The link in the article seems to be dead, too. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A moofe once bit my sister.... Literally no relevant google hits whatsoever unless this is meaningful. There's no evidence the website ever existed in the Internet Archive, either. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Hoaxalicious. Edison (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since this band released their debut album in 2004, it's unlikely that this supposed album from 1997 is anything more than a hoax. faithless (^speak) 05:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Los Lonely Boys (Los Lonely Boys Sofaking album)

Los Lonely Boys (Los Lonely Boys Sofaking album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album doesn't seem to have been covered in any reliable sources, and a search for such sources turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Sofaking? That's an old joke. It must be a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfer68 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Smith (ice hockey)

Jeremy Smith (ice hockey) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior hockey player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meed WP:N. When and if he plays professionally he can have his article recreated. He has not won any other major individual awards that could have gained him notability through other means. Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grsz 11 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Hasn't played professionally and hasn't played at highest available level of amateur so fails WP:ATHLETE. --JD554 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• 'Keep Junior_hockey#Major-Junior says that the league he plays in is a professional league. Branson03 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my vote, although even if you get payed a small amount it is still professional. That is the literal definition of professional. Branson03 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No it says the NCAA considers it professional, but no other governing body does. It is due to a $40 a week honorarium they receive which contravenes NCAA requirements for eligability to play in the NCAA. Players who play in this league are deleted almost weekly.

There is ample precidence. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. His league is not a top-level league, thus he fails WP:N. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The Nashville Predators just signed him today. At the time of this nomination he is a professional under contract, (be it in Nashville or with the Milwaukee Admirals) ccwaters (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As are numerous junior players. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so until he actually plays a game he still doesn't meet the standards. This could still be a couple of years. Junior players often sign pro contracts years before they ever actually play pro. -Djsasso (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment No, signing him means he's going somewhere pro within the Preds's system now. Drafting him gave The Preds exclusive rights to sign him within 3,4(?) years after which would have been draft eligible once again or a free agent depending on age. I don't think he can go to Milwaukee because he's not on their clear day roster. Its the NHL or lower minors (ECHL or CHL). I'm sure we'll find out within a day. ccwaters (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment No actually it doesn't. Players sign pro contracts anytime after they have been drafted. The first year of their contract doesn't kick in until they have played X number of games in the NHL or AHL etc. Drafting him gave them the right to sign him within 2 years otherwise he goes back into the draft. There are numerous players playing in the major juniors right now with pro contracts. All signing him to a contract has done, is made it impossible for him to go back into the draft. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Here we go found the actual amount. Once the player appears in his tenth NHL game, his contract kicks in. prior to that he remains a junior player. Or a better quote would be A junior-aged player who is not signed to an NHL contract by this time must return to his junior team (the official deadline is usually a day or two before the opening games). That player is essentially gone for the year. He is not eligible to return to the NHL until his junior team's season is over. So since he didn't sign a contract till after the season started he is not elligable to turn pro till his junior team is done for the year. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok...you're right: Claude Giroux (ice hockey) is a good example... [9] played in the AHL post QMJHL last season, signed to an entry level over the summer, played for his junior team all season, loaned to the Flyers on an emergency basis, back playing in juniors... ccwaters (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah I was trying to think of a recent good example and he fits the bill. You will often see players play for the pro farm team during the playoffs if they are a really good junior player and their junior team is already knocked out of the playoffs. And once this guy does something like that then by all means give him a page. Just right now he hasn't played a game yet. -Djsasso (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I think the timeframe to sign is longer and I think its different for NCAA prospects. Once you sign a contract you're done (Kyle Okposo). A 2 year timeframe would ensure that most draftees would leave college early: something the NCAA would greatly frown upon. Whatever, its irrelevant to this AFD. ccwaters (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Yeah NCAA and I think Europe both get a couple extra years. I was just talking in context of this particular player since he plays in the OHL. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the top two comments! --Camaeron (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment He did split the Dave Pinkney Trophy with Michal Neuvirth last year. Smith played 34 games to Neuvirth's 41, so it was close to 50/50. It is a statistical award that goes to the team with the best GAA. Is Dave Pinkney Trophy notable enough? Patken4 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think it is, but that's just my opinion. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to icehockey.wikia.com. Powers ^T 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have transwikied it now, forgot to mention I would automatically transwiki it if it were deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete as non-notable, transwiki, and everybody wins. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete...simply not notable...I mean, he just signed to a professional contract yesterday... --Smashville^BONK! 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for now, but I look forward to seeing his article recreated when he does play pro. Resolute 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wasn't drafted high enough to be considered notable, though I personally would love to see this article created when he does turn pro, it's only a matter of time. Raphie (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weafer

Weafer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a surname with no examples of notable people with that surname. —BradV 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Aside from the last line, appears real, but factuality doesn't guarantee notability for anything and everything. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, smells hoax-y, non-notable at the least. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I do like the idea of surnames on wiki but if there are not any notable examples...--Camaeron (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as article does not verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PDF Sign&Seal

PDF Sign&Seal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish WP:Notability via independent reliable sources that are not blogs, downloads & the like. Note that it was originally speedied; an editor removed some of the spam content, but it still reads like advert. Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advert. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, advertising..--Camaeron (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't Delete, Text is much improved now. See external links (specially Adobe Security Partner Community link) which are notable and should be enough to make the text credible.Mwahaj (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Credibility isn't the issue, notability is. None of these links are independent reviews, which would be necessary to establish notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, I tried to find independent sources to assert the notability of software, but I failed. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IlliDell

IlliDell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's an apparently nn chapter of Alpha Gamma Sigma (fraternity). Fails WP:CORP for local orgs. I'd have suggested a merge, but the information is solely about the local chapter, and neither the parent organization nor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have or would be improved by such specific information. List of Fraternities and Sororities at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign exists, however it's a list of the parent orgs, not the chapter specific information and requirements. This information is best suited to the chapter's website and not an encyclopedic article. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Local chapters of frats have long been deemed non-notable. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of reliable third party sources to establish notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was merge. I have redirected; knowledgable editors are enouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomizo Todayama

Tomizo Todayama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a character from a Japanese tv show. This character, under a different name, already has an article under a name that is much more likely to be searched-for. Thusly, this article should go. The information within this article is repeated in the actual article, Kamen Rider Todoroki. Howa0082 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Kamen Rider Todoroki the information does not match up so it should be confirmed if any content is worth merging. Since it is reasonable that someone would search with "Tomizo Todayama", there is no reason to delete the page when it can instead be a redirect. I don't quite see the reason why this is at AfD. -Verdatum (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - It's actually not reasonable at all. The character's non-Todoroki name is mentioned perhaps once in the entire series. If someone wants to know about Todoroki, they're not going to go looking for his lesser-known human name, since the Torodoki identity isn't an alternate identity like Superman, it's just who he is; it's a new name he takes up to symbolize his heroness. He never again goes by Todoyama. Which is why I don't feel this article should exist; if you know Todoroki's human name, it's almost impossible to not know who he is as a Kamen Rider, so why would you search for the lesser-known name? Howa0082 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Kamen Rider Todoroki. No need for multiple articles about the same fictional character. Edison (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• 'Merge' to Kamen Rider Todoroki Ditto to everyone. Why are we arguing? -- Taku (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Swanson

Scott Swanson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. This article consists mostly of original research. Having your name mentioned briefly in the New York Times or on a blog does not qualify as extensive coverage. Anyone can release PRwire press releases. 99.231.125.109 (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The blogs and press releases do not count for much toward satisfying WP:BIO. The NY Tiles is a 2 sentence mention noting a job change. The Forbes link is broken, but no evidence it is more than a directory listing or passing reference. He sems on the bubble, and on the sliding toward deletion (for now) side of that bubble, due to the lack of multiple substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Any subject which relies primarily on PRwire for sources is likely not notable, and Swanson fits that profile. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral both of the above comments make me neutral --Camaeron (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Farris

Chad Farris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of the text is based on rumor, resemblances and nonnotable achievements and events. The claim of there being a major label involved is unverifyable. Mostly all I can find are a handful of Myspace pages. Kingturtle (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Both albums are self-released, claims of having been signed to major labels apparently false... if he was signed to them, he certainly never released anything for them under that name. No reliable sources, no AMG entry, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC and comments of Andrew Lenahan. Edison (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete per the directly above...--Camaeron (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - completely unsourced, fails WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:N. Created by single-purpose account, making this WP:SPAM. And I already see a sentence that should be deleted immediately under WP:BLP. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation for Rational Economics and Education

Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Political organization that appears to be solely related to Ron Paul with no notability of its own. All meaningful information already in the Ron Paul article and redirect attempt made, but redirect was reverted. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A minor mention in Ron Paul's article is sufficient. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: As of now, all objections do not address the significant additional content I've put in. I believe the independent notability is now established by its links to The New Republic newsletter controversy, three grants related to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the election of TX-14#1996, and the allegations of a link to the 9/11 Public Discourse Project. The fact that these relations may also involve Paul is as insignificant as any other corporation being deleted in favor of all activity flowing to its founder. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per both above...--Camaeron (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Ron Paul's ownership of the foundation is insufficient reason to delete the article. The Austrian views promoted therein are held by other notable economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman, and Walter Block, to name a few - not "solely" Representative Ron Paul. JLMadrigal (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Um, a few things here. First, the zany history, in that this was deleted on Feb 3 and my memory is that there was much more content. Two days ago I requested a history-only restoration of the prior article, but on first glance the history restored doesn't jibe with my memory of the article either. In short, I don't believe the decision should be made on the current version and the current history alone. Second, I did ask Dougie to hold off on sudden activity until the restored history could be reviewed, which he didn't. But getting to the content, Dougie's insertion of the content into Ron Paul did not fit neatly or flow well with the prior content in that section either, so the appeals to that article are inappropriate; there is more content than fits well in the parent article. Additionally, there is more that can be added, and FREE is also connected to the 2-month-old newsletter controversy, so there is volatility and deletion should not happen blindly in that context either. FREE is an independent Austrian economics think tank and NEFL is a significant media arm with many published videos unrelated to Paul directly. Since the closer will review the deletion arguments against the article's independence at closing time and not currently, I trust Madrigal and I will have time to fix this and all will be well. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I am told the whole history has been restored now; I have been remembering a different article. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Add: Paul plugged FREE in his latest campaign video, now also reflected in article per Wash Post. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ron Paul per nominator's arguments. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:PERNOM, would you mind stating your own arguments, especially since the article has undergone so much change in the interim as to be an essentially different article? John J. Bulten (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's more that I thought the nominator's arguments support a merge, but I don't think the article should be deleted since it does have some sources. With that in mind I'll clarify my nomination to keep or merge. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Ron Paul or delete altogether - no evidence of notability presented. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Mike, you seem to want to go into Round 42 of the discussion: whether the coverage in New York Times, Wash Post, and New Republic is reliable or significant. I recognize there is a bit less here than with other articles that have survived AFD, but even if you run with that, I'd hope you'd recognize that we've found enough during this AFD to be able to reasonably request being given another week or two to improve sourcing, whether Madrigal chimes in, or whether something turns up in book searches. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • reply the coverage is of Ron Paul; the organization is of no notability outside of its connection with him. AfD discussions are not meant to last an infinite period while people scrounge for evidence to back up their opinions. This is one of only four AfDs left which are this stale. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - marginal; there are lots of sources, but they appear to concern Ron Paul, not this group. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. faithless (^speak) 06:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frisco Centennial High School

Frisco Centennial High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not necessarily notable and hasn't had anything significant added to the article. Primarily a target for vandalism. Enigma ^msg! 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - high school with sources available. Vandalism is a very bad ground for a deletion nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteVandalism is not grounds for deletion, but there is nothing here that suggests this school is notable. Couple of years old, offers two grades, four grades whatever.... No doubt destined to become a proxy in the schoolyard wars here (hey, where's Alan with his brown bagged policies lecturing us?), but made no more notable or deserving of an article for it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It narrowly failed last time, but the article has not improved to show it deserves inclusion. Don't think it's sufficiently notable. This article exhibits no encyclopedic value, is full of POV statements, and in parts nonsensical. Enigma ^msg! 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• The nonsense and POV were vandalism. Another editor cleaned that up. Vandalism is not a good reason to delete. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Silensor/Schools, User:Xoloz/Schools and Partial solution to rampant deletionism. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a high school, generally considered to be notable as a high school. How is this different from any other high school that has been kept in AFD as a high school? Nyttend (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Common outcomes from AFDs show that high schools have generally been kept. A high school is important to its region and as a result gets news coverage on a continuing basis, either for good things they are doing , for athletic or scholastic success, or for scandals. Google News archive shows 39 results for this school ranging from trivial to substantial coverage: [10]. Newspaper archive.com shows 9 stories which cover this school. Edison (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Precedent clearly establishes that high schools are notable by default. Yes, they are frequently vandalized (I have pretty much every high school in my metro area on my watchlist), but they are still notable, and nothing about this article indicates otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - We seem to have agreed that all High Schools are notable. The fact that an article is frequently vandalised suggests reverting to an acceptable version and protecting it against vandalism by those not signed in. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I-glasses

I-glasses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is blatant advertising. Speedy deletion was denied with no explanation. —BradV 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's advertising, created by single-use account. No reliable sources, fails notability. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy appears to have been declined under a7 but could clearly have gone under a11 as it's pure advertising with no evidence of RS coverage TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, advert. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, is an advert, can be speedied! --Camaeron (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. There is clear consensus here that this article does not sufficiently demonstrate notability to merit stand-alone status, but less clear consensus as to whether or not the appropriate response is deletion or merger. Since lack of consensus to delete defaults to keep (not necessarily in current form), I am defaulting to the merge. The majority of those arguing for merge seem to suggest Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) as the appropriate destination. A mention of the reworking of the legend may be appropriate in Lindworm, but there isn't really sufficient material here of real-world notability to merge. Perhaps a "see also" with a pointer to the appropriate new section would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linnorm (Dungeons & Dragons)

Linnorm (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage, but has appeared in numerous first party supplements. May deserve a mention on pages regarding dragons or undead, but I can see no reason why it deserves its own article. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bury. Merge to Lindworm if it would be appropriate. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Snide comments about D&D are unhelpful at any time but are especially inappropriate since Gary Gygax just died. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• That wasn't a snide comment. He was just mentioning the fact that we over at the relevent WikiProject are currently on a drive to remove fancruft, and welcome help. J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Per the OED snide means Insinuating, sneering, slyly derogatory.. Your reference to fancruft is also snide. Such comments are not civil. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am aware of what 'snide' means, and so I am capable of seeing that the original comment was not snide. 'Fancruft' is a recognised term regarding types of content- fancruft is information that would be of interest to only an extreme fan, and has no real encyclopedic value. That is what this is- the information is of interest only to fans of the game (myself included) but of no value to an encyclopedia. Describing this as fancruft is no more an insult than changing grammar in an article. If you believe people are being uncivil here, your perception of civility is a little warped. In any case, if we're going to be picky, I could respond that you should assume an assumption of good faith and call you uncivil for implying my assertion of cruft was cruftcruft. Thankfully though, I'm not picky. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "D&D Spring Cleaning" thing was in existence before the unfortunate news. If anything, cleaning up Wikipedia's treatment of D&D is an even BETTER idea now, as there are probably more people now than ever before coming to Wikipedia for information about Gary and his game. --Ig8887 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons); then give that article a hard look. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with either Lindworm or Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). This is not a newly minted critter from D&D, but a traditional one that D&D used. As such the D&D version is just another generation's reworking of the traditional concept, as valid as any that preceded it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/merge The most appropriate merge target seems to be Lindworm. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, can be included somewhere --Camaeron (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge; there's been some issue as to whether D&D critters should be added to real-world mythological sources. I'm not sure I understand all of the positions involved, but it seems like a safer merge is into Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons), one of the D&D monster articles that is almost certainly notable on its own. --Ig8887 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:WAF, so its in universe content is not worth keeping or merging.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable. no outside sources. shadzar-talk 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "All known linnorms are evil and cruel." Yet Another Non-Notable Generic Game Monster. --John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fine as a redirect. Redirects are cheap. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir edwin wijeyeratne

Sir_edwin_wijeyeratne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Please delete this page, as it seems to have been added by mistake: it says 'Sir edwin wijeyeratne' in the title, without correct use of capitals. Hence, please could this page be deleted, so that a new blank page can be created called 'Sir Edwin Wijeyeratne', which could be redirected to the 'Edwin Wijeyeratne' page already on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitz Mackins (talk • contribs) 2008/03/05 11:39:42

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Edwin Wijeyeratne. The nom could've done this without going to AfD. It seems to have been created by someone who did not know the article already exists (well looking at the revision history anyway). Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abdeslam Boulaich

Abdeslam Boulaich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Admin removed CSD#A7 from this article, I believe inappropriately. Removal comment was “Actually, this might be interesting if it can be expanded. Bowles is apparently notable for this sort of work”. This article is about Abdeslam, not Bowles (who has his own article). Further, A7 states speedy deletion is appropriate when an article “does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources”. CSD makes no consideration of what “might be interesting”. The article asserts no importance or significance.

Admin provided several possible sources on the talk page, which either do not constitute reliable sources as defined by WP:RS/WP:V, or are, again, about Bowles. This is a moot point, however, as notability is not the threshold for inclusion here (CSD#A7 explicitly differentiates between "importance or significance" and notability). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and expand if possible. Unfortunately, the remainder of my comment was cut off; a simple search in English found 1,800 hits on Boulaich. Obviously, a lot of that will be chaff - but he has a book listed on Amazon, and there's an English course that discusses one of his works. That is enough to warrant keeping the article so that we can investigate if more material can be found to expand it. (With regard to the nom's assertion that the removal of the tag was "inappropriate", and the comment on my talk page, it is important to note that the speedy deletion guidelines explicitly state "deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria" and "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it." Speedies are a request for deletion, not a directive; as an administrator, I'm supposed to assess if the request is warranted and act accordingly. As an editor, I'm entitled to disagree with another editor's opinion.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read comments critically. Phrasing of “appears to be an unambiguous judgment error” and “I believe your removal of the CSD from Abdeslam Boulaich to be inappropriate” are clear in their expression that are my opinions, not that they are correct and/or constitute a "directive". Your entitlement to disagree is not in dispute. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on the speedy denial issue. Speedy is supposed to be declined if there is an assertion of importance, and being a storyteller may not be one, but being a translated storyteller surely is. It is not proof of notability, but it's sufficient to deny speedy. Speedy was declined, and we are now in AFD, so the issue is moot. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. His work passes criterion 4 of WP:BK as the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs [11] [12] [13] [14]. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. I tried adding some references but what I could find was very minimal. I couldn't find any biographical data. Things like this would be useful to the article. Renee (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assumption College, Warwick

Assumption College, Warwick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded as a non-notable college. I contested the prod under the assumption that almost all colleges are considered notable. However, since this one doesn't appear to be the subject of any reliable sources, and since I contested the prod, I'm taking this to AfD. Weak delete unless sources can be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as a high school, for which sources are available. TerriersFan (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Precedent clearly establishes high schools as automatically notable, and this article does nothing to contradict that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per terriersfan...--Camaeron (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete the consensus of this discussion is delete, unless WP:RS were presented , the references dont go to the extent of satisfying notability as per WP:Athlete;

the first point of that competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent there arent any sources to support him as being professional.

As an amateur the requirement is highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them), its the lack of secondary sources.

Taking all of this into consideration, on the surface there appears to be potential for an article if sources to address the notability are provided. Suggest that media outlets in his home may have written articles at the time his winning the Portuguese title... If sources are provided then the article deletion can be/should be reversed. Gnangarra 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jose Barradas

Jose Barradas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Seems to be a non-notable kickboxer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree def. a speedy! --Camaeron (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• He is an active professional kickboxer. The author doesn't list any references but the information is not bogus. There's a lot of worse articles on kickboxers, something like this Morsak Muangsu. i say Keep it.(Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
• Relist AfD (since this discussion is running out of time and there is no consensus formed yet) and flag for rescue. If he has won some competitions at a national level he may well be notable, but we do need references and sources to establish this. If none are forthcoming, then the article should be deleted. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Just a reliable reference or two and he would satisfy wp:athlete. I can not find any, but someone else might be able to. Barring any addition, this has to be deleted. Mstuczynski (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - There are no references. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are references... one just must look for them, and use the little spanish accent thingy at the end of his first name, and include sources in the native tongue of the subject (Portugese). He was the 2004 WAKO Portuguese Champion.
  • nokaut.com
  • infordesporto.sapo.pt

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There are some mentions of him in various online references, but no actual significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. The two references above are examples of that: the first is a forum site (which does not meet WP:RS in any case), and merely lists his name in a list of matches, and in the second, there is a single mention of his name in an interview with someone else. This does not add up to notability per WP:ATHLETE. --MCB (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Rice

Doug Rice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography of apparent non-notable artist. Wizardman 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know all the comics in the article, but he definitely worked on the Comico version of Starblazers. They were a company that adapted Japanese comics to the US (also Robotech) JoeD80 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, could be speedied, surely? --Camaeron (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Well-known cartoonist, published by established companies such as DC and First comics, notable for being the first professional cartoonist in the States to work in Manga style. Covers here:http://www.comicvine.com/doug-rice/29302/ 195.68.89.135 (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Rhinoracer (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of reliable sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wurzburg's

Wurzburg's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local store that doesn't seem to establish notability. Wizardman 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The chain went under in the 1970s, and it only comprised six or seven stores, so I doubt that there will be much about it on the 'Net. However, I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of some good sources being found in a newspaper archive search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Not notable per WP:CORP. Eusebeus (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete, remnant of an era when every mid-sized city had its own native department store, sometimes with regional branches. namecheck here About the only online RS in any depth is this obit of the onetime owner. I'd advocate a merge if I could find the chain it merged with, but I can't find a trace of it after the 1970s. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it merged with anyone, given that each store was converted to a different name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very weak delete, needs WP:HEY. Close cal here, additional sources would change my vote. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep "notability is not teporary" cant remember where it says that, but it does somewhere....--Camaeron (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Needs WP:HEY, but I'm not yet convinced it's sufficiently non-notable enough to delete. I'd say that these were notable, at that time in those locations, but it's hard to tell. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as there are no reliable sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was keep. The clarification after the initial AFD shows that the church is notable. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lanka Lutheran Church

Lanka Lutheran Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual churches generally aren't notable, particularly if they fail WP:V and WP:RS. Wizardman 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, RS coverage appears limited to press releases related to tsunami relief. Local organisation without RS coverage fails WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

*Delete No evidence of being specially singled out, such as an American church on the National Register of Historic Places would be. Interesting, by the way, that the article says that it's a small church, with only 1200 members! Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, yet again it fails both v and rs! --Camaeron (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think both the nominator and Nyttend have misunderstood the situation - this is not an individual church, but a denomination. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure it's a denomination, so much as the Sri Lankan branch of the Lutheran Church, at least that's how I read it. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, you're right, it's the Sri Lankan branch of the Lutheran Church, which makes it a national organisation, not a local one as you claimed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've put some references in the article to demonstrate the notability of this national organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • • and I have changed my !vote accordingly. I still think the article needs to be made clearer because it's still doesn't clearly demonstrate that, but it does establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable denomination: the bits added since the AFD was put up demonstrate that I understood wrongly before. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it is the national branch of an international denomination. Small, but not so small as to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Although the discussion is hung either way, we need to judge consensus against policy and the policy on wikipedia articles is that the content of articles must be verifiable. In this case this us a super-stub and there is actually not meaningful information to verify. I'm inclined to the view that the subject in inherently notable so I can't see any conclusion except that we should keep this as it stands. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congress of Chiropractic State Associations

Congress of Chiropractic State Associations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

May be notable, but as it stands it fails WP:V and WP:RS. Wizardman 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Clearly notable; here is at least one news article citing the organization as a source: http://sun.dixie.edu/index.php?pg=story&storyid=2886. The organization's website is very professional, and it appears that they hold national conferences. So better sourcing is all that's lacking. Leoniceno (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails v and rs, --Camaeron (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It really seems that better sourcing is not available and the subject non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is evidently the national professional body for a significant profession. Accordingly it is clearly notable. The problem is that the article is such a brief stub, but the solution to that is to expand it, not delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Looks far better now, so I'm going to close this. Wizardman 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sibleys Shoes

Sibleys Shoes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent local company, fails to establish notability through reliable sources. Wizardman 15:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sibley's was a prominent shoe store chain in Michigan -- not just Detroit Metro, I know they went as far north as Alpena. There are already two decent sources in the article, and here's a third. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep assuming the basic facts of the article are true, especially 83 years of history, 38 retail locations, a sizable workforce (350+), and being a notable retailer in a major metropolitan area... they're notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I rewrote the article and added inline citations. It's still not too much, but it's at least a decent stub now, and it doesn't read like proseline. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well done! It's looking a lot better already, and is now a solid stub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Ego the Living Planet

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I'll sign off as endorsing admin. Hiding T 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ego the Living Planet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I consider myself reasonably familiar with comic books. This charatacter did not make an impression on me, and apparently not on the real world either, since there are no third-party sources on the page. Article is written entirely in-universe, and if you look at the history, attempts to make it less so were purged. My reliable sources tag was removed, with edit summary "removed third party tag as comics are sources". In summary: non-notable, no reliable sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'll be coming up with an out-of-universe section as soon as I can, but I've been bogged down with doing the same on other Marvel AFD'ed articles lately plus plenty of real life stuff. Character has had a number of appearances over its 40+ year history, and has appeared in various Marvel cartoon shows. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So he exists. How does that make him notable? Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've started the Publication History section... it'll require time to complete, and I need concentration, so I'll have to finish it later. BOZ (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A few sources here and I expect that more can be found. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Those sources are either comics compilations, or about a musical group of the same name. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - although victim to a minimalistic page editiing, this character has been a notable comics villain for the past 40 years appearing in other medium such a video games and television. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
  • I still don't see any outside sources to attest to that. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - looks like a poster who is simply irked and is being petty. Once again, the comic are the main sources, and the fact that someone has not heard of a character, or that they "did not make an impression on me" is not grounds for deletion. Asgardian (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith. In my nomination, I said "no sources". Removing tags and claiming that the comics books themselves are third party sources makes me think that certain people don't know whhat notability means, The wave of "Keeeps" here, all of which rely on primary sources or personal belief that the character is important, make me wonder. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, comics by established publishers such as Marvel are obviously reliable sources for their own content. In-universe writing is a flaw, but it's a matter for editing, not for deletion. The comments above already deal with the notability issue. Postdlf (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, primary sources do not count as reliable sources. We have no outside sources for notability. He never had a comic of his own. Blast Ulna (talk)
    • I doubt that most of our featured articles cite reliable sources that claim the topics are "notable". --Pixelface (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps not using the word "notable". However, if you look at the Featured Article Captain Marvel (DC Comics), the very first reference does say, "Captain Marvel instantly popular, to the point that it was outselling every comic on the stands for several years". Blast Ulna (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Also a Featured Article, Superman's first source says "In the early twenty-first century, Superman remains one of the most popular comic book characters of all time..." So have I erased your doubt? Blast Ulna (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Then you can say Captain Marvel and Superman are "popular." Saying Captain Marvel is "notable" is a claim not supported by the source, and that sort of thing violates the policy on original research and verifiability. --Pixelface (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Seriously? I'm violating policy? Blast Ulna (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
            • No, I think the notability guideline is violating policy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, until WP:N is amended or deleted, lets stick to arguing within the rules--this article had no third party sources at all when I nominated it. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • There's no requirement that a subject must be the most notable within its particular genre, or even particular world of fiction, in order to merit an article, featured or not. See, e.g., spoo.
        • And again, primary sources are reliable sources for factual descriptions of their own content. Why wouldn't they be? I suspect you're not understanding that whether a source is primary or secondary is completely relative to the assertion for which you are relying upon it. A New York Times article is a secondary source for, say, a quote from John McCain but a primary source for what the article itself says "The New York Times reported that..." You don't need yet another source in order to attribute a statement from the article to that article. Otherwise you'd just need yet another source in order to attribute that attribution. Postdlf (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • There are no secondary sources in the article at present. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources. When Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) was published, it featured the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. This was the primary source - there was no other. To this day, the comic is used as the main source, a point acknowledged on both characters' article pages.

Also, hundreds of characters have never had a comic of their own. Again, this is not grounds for deletion. Do the master villains like Magneto; Ultron and Dormammu have their articles deleted because they never had a series?

Finally, there is the comment - "personal belief that the character is important". This is also a fallacy. If a character has appeared in over 3 decades of comics printed by a publisher, then they themselves deem the character important, and it is this notion that others now support.

Keep, keep, keep.

Asgardian (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • All that is needed is a couple of outside sources on the character, that's all. If he has been around for so many years, surely there are some sources? Blast Ulna (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Outside of what, anything published by Marvel Comics? I honestly can understand you wanting such a thing, but there is no consensus for limiting articles on individual elements of notable fictional universes in this manner. It's really a matter of how detailed should Wikipedia's coverage of a notable thing be. In many cases, such as where a character has only appeared in one individual book, film, video game, etc, there will usually be a consensus to merge into lists ("minor sith characters," whatever). But here, where a character has appeared in multiple publications and media adaptations over decades... Plus where would you merge it? Postdlf (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Character appears in many different titles over many years, basically what everyone else has said. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fortunately, these are not votes. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, they're not, and I doubt your constant replying to every single comment here will impress the closing admin. JuJube (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Not to closer I'll abstain from posting my views here since I'm bringing this up, but I should point out the Comics WikiProject was notified of this discussion as a "speedy keep" issue by an IP here, so vote-stacking will be an obvious issue and should be duly noted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate? I don't see why it's an "obvious issue." Postdlf (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Canvassing, "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". For example, users who would not normally comment on the article votestack. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is about votes, Blast. The character has a well developed in-universe history with ties to many notable Marvel characters and a constant presence over most of Marvel's publishing history. Consensus seems to be that the character is notable, and at least one editor has volunteered to add better sources, although there is already a variety of noted issues in the article. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't like it's the "WikiProject for Keeping Comics." Those interested in comics as a subject aren't predisposed to keep an article just because it's about a comics-related subject. One might as well complain about the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions; does that list and others like it just function to vote-stack? True "canvassing" of the kind that should be frowned upon would be to selectively e-mail or leave talk page messages just for certain like-minded users, obviously a far cry from a public posting on a subject-specific project page, no matter how hopeful that posting was of a particular result. Further, to even raise the concern after seeing that the comments above have substantively responded to the arguments (not, "keep, I love comix!! LOL!") is rather puzzling. Postdlf (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the members of WikiProject Comics share the same brain. One need only to look to the many, many debates about content (or edit wars, for that matter) between project members to know that this is true. Yes, the notification should have been phrased in a more neutral manner, but it clearly falls under the category of friendly notice. Canvassing would be soliciting specific people to support one's cause. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a notable fictional living planet. This character was merged with Oa during the Amalgam crossover. Monster Magnet wrote a song about it on their album Dopes to Infinity. The character has been around for over 40 years and has appeared in multiple issues of notable comic books. --Pixelface (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Noteable, heck DC comic book's living planet (Mogo) has it's own article. P.S. For the sake of record, Magneto has had more then one comic book series. Lots42 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: while most people agree that the character is important because of its longevity and so on, this (like some other similar recent AFD's) has the big problem that that is not sufficient. If the character is not discussed in independent (i.e. not by Marvel), reliable sources, then it fails WP:N and it fails our basic aim to be a tertiary source, not a secondary source. What we need are in depth sources. The character gets mentioned in one article[15] (snippet view [16]). It gets mentioned in a few books, but nothing beyond a passing mention. All in all, this looks to be one of those things that has been around for years but hasn't gotten any serious attention outside fan circles. Should we have an article on it? No, not really. There are over 1,200 articles in the Category:Marvel Comics supervillains alone, I don't believe all of them are notable, and there is no evidence from reliable sources that this one is. Fram (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As extremely goddam STRONG KEEP as is possible !!! I cannot BELIEVE this AFD. Ego, the Living Planet, is one of the most mind-blowing creations of Jack Kirby at the height of his powers. Fram says Ego's not notable? This is a villain who has survived for over 40 years. Even after Kirby's withdrawal, Ego has been taken up by such other notable writers and cartoonists as Stan Lee,Gerry Conway,John Buscema,Rich Buckler,John Byrne,Steve Ditko,Marshall Rogers, Steve Englehart and on and on!

If a recurring character were to be published over 40 years in The New Yorker or The Saturday Evening Post, written by star authors, would that not de facto confer notability? Marvel Comics is the equivalent.

Note that the nominator has also frivolously nominated The Uncanny X-Men for deletion in the past. "I consider myself reasonably familiar with comic books" [...] Hah! If you are, then this is bad faith nomination. If you aren't, then you have no business commenting on comics at all.

Deletionism is being roundly abused. Rhinoracer (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• What? I NEVER nominated the Uncanny X-Men for deletion. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If a recurring character was published for forty years in The New Yorker, and gets no reviews, in depth studies, ... in reliable independent sources, then it is not notable. Of course, the chance of this happening is very small, but then again, The New Yorker doesn't have thousands of recurring characters, contrary to the Marvel Universe. If there are no articles in e.g. TCJ or whatever reliable source you prefer about "celebrating 10 / 20 / 30 / 40 years of Ego" or anything remotely similar, if not one book or article not published by Marvel hasn't spent even a page about the history of Ego or the differences between Ego and other "living planets" in science fiction or whatever angle you can imagine, then all we have is a truckload of fans thinking that longevity means notability, and not a single good source agreeing with this. Fram (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; for many reasons. First, the character has appeared in multiple media, including the Fantastic Four cartoon. Second, the character has had a song by an third-party band (that is, one with no affiiliation with Marvel) named after him. That leaves WIkipedia with a high likelihood that someone will see the name of the song and wonder what the heck an "Ego, the Living Planet" is. It would be nice if Wikipedia was capable of serving its intended purpose. Third, the character HAS had his own comic: the 2001 issue Maximum Security: Dangerous Planet. The "planet" in question is Ego, the Living Planet. Further, the remainder of the Maximum Security miniseries features him as the primary villain. Any review of Maximum Security, therefore, is also a discussion of Ego. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See, I knew adding a Publication History section was a good idea.  :) I found a note on that "Oni Press Color Special" - anyone know what that is, or if it would count as a secondary source? BOZ (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Third party sources exist and can be added. In-universe content can be deleted and replaced with real-world context. (Attempts to improve the article being reverted in the past aren't a valid deletion reason). The reliable sources tag can be re-added and the article can be fixed. Nominating a subject for deletion because your edits were reverted is a poor reason for an AfD. Rray (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep keep dammit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.82.159 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep has comics book sources. Gman124 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He's a part of Marvel history. Beef up the article, but don't delete. --Noclevername (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - the definition of notability is changing I see. I guess Ego have alternate versions and appearing in the Silver Surfer cartoon makes him obscure. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- for all the reasons noted above. As far as I'm concerned, it's the "secundary sources needed" approach that needs serious revision. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete Renata (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] String-Man (Story)

String-Man (Story) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic, no sources or Google hits to verify anything in the article. Elaborate hoax perhaps, or something that was made up one day. Prod removed by author, sending to AfD per procedure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. The bulk of the article is Spider-Man with some names and such changed, the remainder is nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  It technically isn't patent nonsense, and certain hoaxes aren't speedy deletable. Whether it's blatant or not to constitute vandalism, I'm not sure. (Personally not familiar with comics)--TBC!?! 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  Blatant hoaxes are speediable under G3. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  See my comment below. --TBC!?! 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  Copy-pasting another article with a couple names changed is vandalism, as well as a copyright violation (repasting the Spider-man article doesn't retain its history, thus violating GDFL). Please do NOT defend this type of junk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not defending it, I'm simply stating that it shouldn't be speedily deleted. It's not a copyright violation since the text wasn't directly lifted off of the Spider-Man article. And yeah, I don't know much about comics, so I'm not sure if it should be considered a blatant hoax (thus constituting vandalism) or not.--TBC!?! 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to be non-notable; no refs; nothing comes up on search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgagnon999 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, per Andrew Lenahan; copy paste from spider man with a few changes (some mentions of spider man remain) - Dumelow (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Seems to qualify under G3 in my opinion; blatant vandalism. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, This either a hoax, made-up or simply vandalism. Nothing comes up on Google. Proclaims to be published by Microsoft (who as everyone knows, is a computer company and does not publish comics), Created by a single-use account called Smhero. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Giving it as much of the benefit of the doubt as I can, this is made up in one day. At worst, it's a G3. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. A hoax. --TBC!?! 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as blatant hoax. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per multiple comments above. If it doesn't meet speedy criteria we're probably getting pretty close to where it could be Snowed--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete blatant hoax --Camaeron (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krimson Creek

Krimson Creek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs and WP:V. Prod declined because the article had been previously deleted via prod (?). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no info seems to exist on the album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Currently fails WP:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated when the album is released later this year. Bláthnaid 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Def. a delete fails crystal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaeron (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article did not indicate the importance or significance of its subject. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald McGauley

Gerald McGauley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable - the article itself states "Until this date Gerald McGauley is still not famous" Gil Gamesh (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. CSD A7, an article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Aurthor even admits that the subject is not notable. Has been tagged.--TBC!?! 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Dee as per above. Nothing to support notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected by myself to Standard score per consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standardized variable

Standardized variable (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. CSD A5, any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition, has already been transwikied. Has been tagged. Speedy redirect. Author has requested time to expand the article, as per Moonriddengirl's comments, so it shouldn't be speedily deleted. Either way, the content is redundant with the article that Qwfp brought up, so it should warrant a speedy redirect instead.--TBC!?! 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article is expanded beyond dictionary definition by the closure of this AfD. Tree Biting Conspiracy (great name!) is quite right that it qualifies, but I have declined the speedy as a courtesy to the creator, who opined on March 4th that "Yes it needs expanding - but should not be deleted." This gives him or other editors an opportunity to expand it if they choose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per proposal by Qwfp and consent of the creator. No other substantial contributors to the article. Such a speedy redirect requires consent of TexasAndroid, of course, since the AfD was proposed in good faith. If TexasAndroid consents and no other arguments are advanced for deletion, closure of the AfD by Wikipedia:Speedy keep and then redirection should be uncontroversial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Good outcome. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Standard score. This concept has several names, unfortunately, and standardized variable is another one that is used (never heard it called a "z-value" before but Z-score is already a redirect). Nothing worth merging yet so a clear-cut case for a redirect. Qwfp (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Standard score (which I have amended slightly). I did not know this existed (having looked for it) when I wrote the original. Johnbibby (talk) (original creator) —Preceding comment was added at 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)